I just read the RX1 review and I am missing 3 points in this review, which would make it easier for many to make a buying decision:

1. Compared to the Sigma DP2M: How fast and how accurate is the RX1? Is it better, worse or equal?

2. Why no comparison to the Fuji X100? MR liked the x100 also a lot in his old review of 2011. So how is image quality, AF speed etc. of the X100 compared to the RX1?

3. If you attach the EVF to the RX1, how is this compared to the OVF/EVF of the X100? Refresharte, usefulness with AF and with manual focus. Also looking in bright sunlight and at scenes with almost no light (retaurants, christmas trees at home, streets at night etc.)

It would be great if the answers to these questions could be added to the review or answered here.

I'll pitch in here, as I've used my DP2M for a couple months now, and had the opportunity to take some test shots with the RX1 just before New Year's. Nothing, except other Sigmas, is as slow as the DP2M, and I mean by a lot. Achieving focus isn't the problem; it is writing to card. In taking some panoramic shots, I think I hit the buffer at nine shots, then couldn't take one more until the buffer had cleared room for it. And, believe me, that is a considerable wait. Also, I think I can't change camera settings until everything has been written to card. That is another perplexing wait. On the other hand, it has been my recent favorite camera for outdoor shooting. When you nail the focus in good light, nothing looks as good -- actually spectacular onscreen and in print -- including files from a full-frame DSLR. You asked for a comparison with the Fuji X100. I don't have one, but picked up my daughter's X100 about a year ago. I had expected to like it, but didn't. She gets nice photos with it, which I download and print from full-size files off of our Flickr accounts. But for whatever reason, it didn't feel good in the hand, and the controls just didn't seem natural or comfortable to me. It could be I was just accustomed to the controls on my GH-2, and the differences seemed awkward to me. As soon as I picked up the camera, I wanted to put it down. I am hard-put for an explanation, but I think it goes to show how much that immediate in-hand reaction to a camera can mean. On the other hand, as soon as I picked up the Sony RX1 in the camera store, and took it out on the street for some test shots, I wanted to cradle it in my hand forever. Maybe that is a slight exaggeration. No -- it really felt that good. And the controls certainly added to the feeling. With the aperture control physically turned on the lens, and facing you when you look down, and the exposure compensation on a nice large dial on the top right of the camera, you don't have to look at an LCD or EVF to confirm or change your settings (or think about which buttons or dials to press or turn to change them). I have in fact made a decision to get back to my camera dealer in the next few days and buy this camera. I expect to use auto-ISO, especially after reading about Michael's experience with it, and then not have to confirm or change that setting either. I also will put a Voigtlander viewfinder on the camera, as I did with my DP2M. The feeling of quality in the build of the camera is major. The first night I worked with the test files from the RX1, I hadn't realized that Adobe had updated Camera Raw to deal with them, so I processed the jpgs, the results of which would have kept me from getting this camera, at least from a file shot in gray afternoon light at ISO 1250. Lower-ISO jpgs looked much better. Then I finally updated Photoshop last night and processed that same imagefrom the raw file. Very fine. For years now, I have worked only from raws. I expect this camera will make all my shooting at its focal length a real pleasure. --Barbara

I just read the RX1 review and I am missing 3 points in this review, which would make it easier for many to make a buying decision:

1. Compared to the Sigma DP2M: How fast and how accurate is the RX1? Is it better, worse or equal?

2. Why no comparison to the Fuji X100? MR liked the x100 also a lot in his old review of 2011. So how is image quality, AF speed etc. of the X100 compared to the RX1?

3. If you attach the EVF to the RX1, how is this compared to the OVF/EVF of the X100? Refresharte, usefulness with AF and with manual focus. Also looking in bright sunlight and at scenes with almost no light (retaurants, christmas trees at home, streets at night etc.)

It would be great if the answers to these questions could be added to the review or answered here.

Hi. It wasn't the RX100 that he was interested in; it was the Fuji X100. I myself read it wrong the first time I read through the post, and wondered about a comparison with a camera half the size and a much smaller sensor than the RX1 (and yes, the zoom on the RX100 is nice to have). The RX1 and the RX100 are two very different animals except for megapixel count. --Barbara

1. Compared to the Sigma DP2M: How fast and how accurate is the RX1? Is it better, worse or equal?

The DP2M is a slug of a camera. Great image sharpness and resolution, but slow and annoying to shoot with, and poor at ISOs above 400. The RX1 is a dream by comparison and about three stops more sensitive, not to mention full frame vs APS-C.

2. Why no comparison to the Fuji X100? MR liked the x100 also a lot in his old review of 2011. So how is image quality, AF speed etc. of the X100 compared to the RX1?

I don't see much to compare. The X100 is a very nice camera, but unless you want the hybrid VF the IQ of the Sony is considerably better.

3. If you attach the EVF to the RX1, how is this compared to the OVF/EVF of the X100? Refresharte, usefulness with AF and with manual focus. Also looking in bright sunlight and at scenes with almost no light (retaurants, christmas trees at home, streets at night etc.)

The Sony AF (not considering the viewfinder type window of the X100) is superior in every way. Two years newer technology.

It would be great if the answers to these questions could be added to the review or answered here.

The recurring problem with all these wishes for a new camera using the full 36x24mm film format is _lenses_. Current NEX lenses are for the most part not well-suited to that larger format (e.g. wrong focal length ranges in zooms, inadequate mage circle size at normal to wide focal lengths) and using such a NEX-mount camera with 35mm format SLR lenses via an adaptor gives you a clumsy, ugly version of the A99.

So the question is:how likely is it that Sony (or any camera maker) will introduce a new lens system suited to use on new mirrorless cameras in 36x24mm format Real Soon Now?

As a historical note, I cannot think of any new digital system camera being introduced in a format larger than "APS-C" without there already existing a substantial system of suitable lenses in that format.

As a historical note, I cannot think of any new digital system camera being introduced in a format larger than "APS-C" without there already existing a substantial system of suitable lenses in that format.

What about the Leica S2? It's larger than APS-C and only had a few lenses at launch (and to date).

OK, I was skeptical of the RX1 but figured I'd flip it on eBay in a week if it didn't perform. I feel IQ is the single most important issue, and no, I don't own a Sigma, but may get one for giggles since so many love it in the proper setting.

Oh, BTW I bought an RX100 for my wife and love it, but it is a 1" sensor and falls apart once you crop

anyway

The RX1 is fer shure the Real Deal! Pardon my informality, but when it is, it just is.

ISO up to 6400 is all good. Not an "emergency" setting by any means (once you have a stop or two in your pocket, it's amazing how much you'll use it!)Color is gorgeousCrops up to 2:1 are no problem, even 3:1 in good lightThe lens is sharp, even at 2.0AF is fast and reliableHave not hit the buffer stop yet, even with kids and dogs in actionLR 4.3 has a darn good preset

Since the D4 is more than a handful, picked up a OM-D in hopes of perhaps unburdening me when a system was the answer. So I compared the OM-D to the RX1. OM-D with the new "Leica" 24mm 1.4 vs. RX1 at various ISO settings... the RX1 absolutely blew the OM-D away. No contest. Color, IQ, not even close. Your Grandma could see it in a heartbeat. Gave the OM-D to my daughter after that.

RX1 vs. D4 with Nikkor 35 1.4G? Well, the D4 wins that. It's close (sort of, if you're not too picky) until one pixel-peeps, At about 1:2 the Nikon takes over definitively, and of course once you go really high ISO the D4 has few competitors.

Bottom line however is that the RX1 is indeed "all that". If your looking for a reasonably pocketable item that takes beautiful pics, fast AF and accurate exposure that can be cropped, it really is in a class by itself as far as I can tell

Hope this helps...

PS, Barbara is right about "feel". As a former and recovering M-user I can tell you it's a hunk, with great feel and reasonably intuitive controls/menus

I wonder how much the newly announced X100S with improved af and speed muddies the waters. Assuming the price isn't much more than the X100 launch price (which dropped to £670ish here within 6 months) you get a OVF and EVF included for one heck of a lot less money.

Thanks to all your comments. I have still to wait. I agree with Mark, it looks like with the new X100s there will be even more fresh air in this segment. The X100s will use a 16MP X-Trans CMOS II Sensor, the "old" X100 a 12 MP Sony Sensor. So it will be different to both, the old X100 and the X-Pro1/X-E1.

Looking at a video about the RX1 it seems to me too bulky. Just the small bit too big over an X100 IMHO. The RX1 body is very thin (as with all Sony NEX), but the Zeiss lens is like a Bazoka in front of it

This is what I hate with teh NEX system. The body are toys and the lenses way too big for such a so called small system. But we will see what the first reviews of the X100s will bring and compare then again.